Could you please weigh in on this Tyler Hamilton/ Stazio criterium debate ?
Some of the rancor from another thread ...
blah blah blah ...
Bill C wrote:
> Tim Lines wrote:
> > http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9623.0.html
> Everyone who bitched needs to write a fucking check. They're all on
> their Ivory pedestal being proud of their moral stand while slashing
> money being raised from programs for deserving people. Their moral
> victory is a disaster for local kids and events, but they don't give a
> fuck about that. Screw the innocents that get run over by their
> crusade, and lose tons of funding and support, they can pat themselves
> on the back.
> They need to sign on to some of the other crusades too.
> Personally I'd take money from the devil, and spit in his eye while
> doing it, to make things better for kids who want to race.
> The other thing is these people seem to be of the liberal ilk, and I
> thought that giving people the chance at redemption and judging them by
> their actions after falling were the key things, instead they are
> acting like he should've been banished to Siberia, or sent to a
> reeeducation camp.
> If you want to cut out Tyler, write a fucking check. Don't kill the
> innocent civilians just to claim what you think is the moral high
> ground. Yeah Tyler probably cheated to get some wins, but at least he
> isn't fucking over kids to feel good about himself.
> Bill C
Wah, wah, wah, liberals, wah, wah. Maybe somebody should
blame the "rat" who sent the results into cyclingnews.com.
How is this taking money out of the mouths of deserving
juniors? The compromise stated in the velonews article
means the races can still go on. The entry fee that they're
losing is Tyler's.
I recently received a call from a USA Cycling staff member asking what
became of the old USCF racing rule that prohibited riders from competing
in unsanctioned races, under threat of suspension. I told him that even
though we had enforced it a few times in the early 1980s I came to the
conclusion that it was illegal and first got it liberalized, then
removed, as follows.
(1) In 1987 the exclusionary rule was liberalized to permit riders to
enter all events permitted by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (Federal
Public Law 95-606).
(2) The prohibition on entering unsanctioned races was removed
altogether in 1996 because we believed it was inappropriate and might be
in violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.
Therefore there is currently no basis in USCF racing rules currently for
threatening suspensions over this matter, though there might be in USPRO
rules, which I haven't read for awhile.
Nevertheless, given that there is a UCI rule on this matter and that USA
Cycling has agreed to abide by UCI rules, there is an indirect basis for
threatening suspension. The question of whether that would hold up in
U.S. courts is another matter.
P.S. I'm still not a lawyer.
Hell Les, it's rational thinking like that that got you and the other
folks run out. I'd doubt that Gerard is real happy about this latest,
but as you point out he's between a rock and a hard place. Since
cycling doesn't have an anti-trust exemption and no real collectively
bargained agreement I hope a bunch of this stuff ends up in civil
courts. Now that would be fun to watch.
So it looks like the UCI's windfall of getting Pro's into the Olympics
may backfire into their faces at least as far as the USA is concerned.